aes26 International Evaluation Conference: Full Schedule

This is the draft aes26 program, subject to change. To register for workshops and the conference, go to: https://www.aes26.aes.asn.au/

arrow_back View All Dates

9:00am ACST

Plenary: Bagele Chilisa "Making Space, Valuing Place: The 21st Century Evaluation Paradigms Challenge"

Thursday September 17, 2026 9:00am - 10:00am ACST

Hall 2

Making Space, Valuing Place: The 21st Century Evaluation Paradigms Challenge
Bagele Chilisa (Botswana), Professor of the Post Graduate Research and Evaluation Programme, University of Botswana

Evaluation systems are under pressure to deliver credible evidence that strengthens decisions, responds to place and context, and envisions the future. This talk invites us to improve policy effectiveness by bringing established Western evaluation approaches into dialogue with other knowledge systems, including place and space based paradigms of formerly colonised Peoples of the world. Paradigms help navigate dialogue on power distribution and how to amplify power for communities, address relationships and rights of Indigenous Peoples to their land and culture and navigate the complexity of context.

The People, Environment, Place, Space, and Time (PEPST) framework, derived from an Indigenous Science paradigm, is presented as a practical tool to enrich evaluation design and use. PEPST challenges decision makers to contextualise evaluation and check whether commissioning, governance, timelines, and success metrics narrow what counts as evidence. PEPST strengthens policy intelligence by centring Indigenous authority, while acknowledging institutional requirements.

This talk explores what changes when PEPST informs how evaluations are commissioned, governed, and used across development programs. It shows how the PEPST framework might connect traditional and new ways of evaluation, strengthen ethics and integrity in evidence making, and build durable bridges between Indigenous knowledge systems and multiple accountability requirements in evaluations.

Speakers

Bagele Chilisa

Professor of the Post Graduate Research and Evaluation Programme, University of Botswana

Bagele [Med, MA EdD (Research Design, Measurement, Statistics and Evaluation)] is a globally recognised scholar and a leading African thought leader who has written extensively on decolonizing research and evaluation methodologies. She currently drives the thinking on a Fifth research... Read More →

Thursday September 17, 2026 9:00am - 10:00am ACST
Hall 2

Plenary

Format Keynote address
Audience Level Advanced, Foundational, Intermediate

10:30am ACST

What works for whom? Developmental evaluation of a domestic violence prevention pilot for young men

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:00am ACST

Waterfront 2

Authors: Simon Alaba, ARTD Consultants, Rachel Aston, ARTD, Brad Astbury, University of Melbourne
Primary prevention programs targeting boys and young men at risk of using violence operate in a space where the evidence base is still developing, and knowing what works, for whom, and in what circumstances, is far from settled.

This presentation draws on 3 years of developmental evaluation of a primary prevention pilot to share three interconnected findings at the intersection of evaluation practice and implementation science.

First, we present evidence that participant and program alignment is among the most influential contextual factors shaping outcomes – a finding with direct implications for how programs like this should be targeted and resourced.

Second, we discuss how a significant program design shift, from targeting harmful gender norms directly to exploring participants' own values as an entry point, improved engagement and created the conditions for more meaningful reflection on masculinity and behaviour.

Third, we explore the adaptation dilemma: when evaluation signals resistance from participants, how should program designers respond?

Drawing on findings across multiple pilot phases, we discuss the tension between adapting to improve engagement and holding firm on program fidelity when discomfort is itself part of the change process. We close by examining what these findings mean for how evaluators interpret and communicate success in primary prevention settings, where uniform outcomes are neither expected nor realistic, and where the most meaningful impacts may be concentrated among a subset of participants.

Attendees will leave with practical insights applicable to developmental evaluation, pilot program design, and the evaluation of complex social programs more broadly. The session will close with audience discussion that invites participants to reflect on how these findings apply to their own evaluation contexts.

Speakers

Simon Alaba

Senior Consultant, ARTD

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:00am ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Short paper
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Community and social services

10:30am ACST

Philanthropy and Evaluation – What Gives?

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:30am ACST

Waterfront 3

Author: Rick Cummings
It is estimated that about $2.4 billion was given in philanthropic and charitable causes in Australian in 2021(Philanthropy Australia, 2021, A Blueprint to Grow Structured Giving). This is a very significant amount and yet there is little if any research on how these funds and programs are evaluated.

We are proposing a panel discussion moderated by a Fellow using a café layout to discuss issues related to philanthropy and evaluation. The idea would be to look both at the role of evaluation in philanthropy and the role of philanthropy in evaluation. The objective is to identify issues in this field, to generate discussion between attendees and philanthropic organisations, and to build some bridges between evaluators and philanthropists for future research and evaluation activities.

The panel will consist of representatives from Australian philanthropic agencies, organisations which rely on philanthropic donations, and Fellows who have conducted evaluations of programs funded by philanthropy. Each of these panel members will be asked to give a 5-minute presentation on the issues they have found in philanthropy and evaluation. These presenters will form a panel, with a Fellow as moderator.

Based on these talks and relevant research, tables will be provided a set of questions to for discussion and for them to provide feedback/questions for discussion with the panel members. Each table will be facilitated by a Fellow or experienced evaluator.

Speakers

Rick Cummings

Emeritus Professor, Murdoch University

Rick Cummings is an Emeritus Professor in Public Policy at Murdoch University. He has 40 years of experience conducting evaluation studies in education, training, health, and crime prevention primarily for the state and commonwealth government agencies and the World Bank. He currently... Read More →

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:30am ACST
Waterfront 3 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Panel
Audience Level Intermediate, Foundational
Industry Not for profit Philanthropy
ID 1010

10:30am ACST

"Yalalamirri mala-djarr’yun – “and then we check” Understanding and sensemaking the Yolŋu way"

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:30am ACST

Hall 2

Authors: Melanie Williams (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation), Gawura Waṉambi (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation, Sylvia Ŋulpinditj (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation), Wuṯpurrŋu Wununŋmurra (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation)

Yolŋu people are the Indigenous people from Northeast Arnhem Land. Yolŋu have their own strong ways of watching carefully, seeing small signs, and knowing when something in wäŋa (land/country, including people) is changing. From these signs, Yolŋu understand what is happening and what they should do – this is the heart of evaluation. We will take the audience on a journey to see the world, and the work of trying to make sense of it, through Yolŋu eyes.

From the start, ARDS has followed the guidance of Yolŋu ŋaḻapaḻ (elders). They have given us the values and framework we work with. This ARDS-ku buyu’ (methodology) is rooted in Yolŋu rom (law) and has been followed for a long time. At ARDS this is our foundation for all our work, including how we think about evaluation.

There are many wataŋu mala (owners and decision-makers) we must think about. Everyone’s räl (hard work and effort) is needed to make the project strong. When we show respect, integrity and trust, we can come to a shared agreement together. This is the Yolŋu way.

Yolŋu metaphors help us appreciate how Yolŋu people have been understanding and valuing growth for many generations. These stories, together with ARDS-ku buyu', are the foundation of our shared evaluation work. We will use the metaphor of the ḻipaḻipa (canoe) to explain our evaluation framework. It has been used in many of our projects.

In this presentation, we will share one example from a child protection project in remote Northeast Arnhem Land. It shows how our approach works in practice.

We want to show you the strength, beauty and depth of Yolŋu ways of understanding, making sense of change, and taking steps forward—and how we do this side-by-side with our non-Yolŋu family and partners.

Speakers

Melanie Williams

ARDS Aboriginal Corporation

Gawura Waṉambi

ARDS Aboriginal Corporation

Sylvia Ŋulpinditj

ARDS Aboriginal Corporation

Maminydjama Maymuru

ARDS Aboriginal Corporation

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:30am ACST
Hall 2

Traditional and new ways

Format Big room
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Not for profit Philanthropy, Community and social services
ID 170

10:30am ACST

Challenging power through MEL: What can Australian and international development evaluators learn from each other?

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:30am ACST

Rooms 1+2

Authors: Elisabeth Jackson (Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University), Thushara Dibley Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University, Shane D'Angelo Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University)

This roundtable explores MEL as a practice that can challenge existing power structures and strengthen community voices. It aims to promote sharing and learning between evaluators in domestic and international contexts and build new connections between evaluators who share similar approaches and principles.

Across diverse approaches such as culturally responsive and Indigenous evaluation, realist approaches, and place-based methods, practitioners are asking: whose worldview shapes what counts as evidence? While the language used in different sectors varies, there are strong common threads: centring marginalised voices, working collaboratively, reflecting on our own assumptions, and valuing local knowledge.

This session is designed for intermediate to advanced evaluators who are thinking critically about power, partnership, and the politics of evidence. Participants will explore what is common across approaches in domestic and international contexts and how these are creating space for different worldviews and supporting forms of evidence that are meaningful to communities.

After a short framing and brief examples, participants will move into structured small-group discussions to surface shared tensions and practical insights. Prompts will include: What is one way your current evaluation practice may reinforce existing power dynamics? Where have you seen MEL genuinely shift decision-making power? What institutional constraints limit these approaches? Groups will then report back in a facilitated plenary. Participants will be invited to identify one insight they will take back into their own practice and one structural barrier the evaluation field needs to address collectively. Key insights will be shared more broadly through a blog developed after the conference.

The roundtable aligns with the aes26 sub-themes Traditional and New Ways and Ethics and Integrity, inviting participants to reflect on their real-world experience of applying participatory and culturally grounded approaches in different contexts and exploring how these can help disrupt existing power relations.

Speakers

Elisabeth Jackson

Senior Research Fellow, La Trobe University - Centre For Human Security and Social Change

Dr Elisabeth Jackson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Human Security and Social Change where she conducts research and evaluation in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. She is currently co-leading an impact evaluation of a program working with diverse marginalised groups... Read More →

Thushara Dibley

Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University

Shane D'Angelo

Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University

Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:30am ACST
Rooms 1+2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Traditional and new ways

Format Round table
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Community and social services, International development

11:00am ACST

When tools meet context: Piloting the WM2A wellbeing measure in Top End renal care

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:00am - 11:30am ACST

Waterfront 2

Author: Victoria Thanasos, Menzies School of Health Research
Introducing new tools into complex health service environments is rarely straightforward, particularly where they intersect with diverse ways of knowing, being, and valuing. This short paper shares insights from piloting the What Matters 2 Adults (WM2A) tool with dialysis patients in the Top End of the Northern Territory, focusing on how feasibility, appropriateness, and potential risks are assessed in practice.

Drawing on a formative evaluation approach, the project combined yarning circles, interviews, and reflective sessions with renal patients and stakeholders. Rapid qualitative analysis, informed by implementation science, was used to identify key barriers, enablers, and contextual factors shaping the tool’s potential use.

Three key insights emerged. First, feasibility is not just about logistics, but about meaning – how questions are understood and experienced. Second, appropriateness is not fixed but negotiated in place, requiring ongoing adaptation to language, delivery, and context. Third, introducing new tools carries risks – including burden, misinterpretation, and unintended consequences – that must be actively surfaced and managed.

Rather than presenting final outcomes, this paper focuses on the decisions, tensions, and trade-offs that shaped the pilot, including the deliberate decoupling of tool administration from routine service delivery to minimise burden on patients and staff while enabling deeper exploration. Participants will be invited to reflect on how they assess feasibility, appropriateness, and risk in their own contexts.

Overall, this paper positions evaluation as critical to assessing not just whether a tool works, but whether it fits – offering practical insights for context-sensitive, responsible approaches in complex, culturally diverse settings.

Speakers

Victoria Thanasos

Research Project Coordinator and Phd Candidate, Menzies School Of Health Research

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:00am - 11:30am ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Traditional and new ways

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Health and disability
ID 183

11:30am ACST

Creating Starlight’s First Social Impact Report: What We Learnt

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:00pm ACST

Waterfront 3

Author: Claire Treadgold, Starlight Children's Foundation, Erika Fortunati, Starlight Children's Foundation
Transparency and accountability are paramount for not-for-profit organisations, with public social impact reporting increasingly becoming an expected practice. While guidance on creating Social Impact Reports is growing in the field, there is still a paucity of clear and accessible resources for not-for-profit organisations looking to create Social Impact Reports, especially those producing one for the first time.

This short paper presentation will share our experience at Starlight Children’s Foundation, an Australian not-for-profit dedicated to brightening the lives of seriously ill children, young people, and their families, in developing and publishing our first Social Impact Report this year. The presentation will cover our experience creating the report, including the decisions and challenges we encountered during the process.

We will discuss how we approached selecting which data to include and leave out, how we navigated balancing different priorities, e.g. the tension between including “pure” research and evaluation data while also presenting data in a marketable and engaging way for external audiences, and how to create a cohesive story of impact that fits within the constraints of one short report.

The objective of this presentation is to share our experience with other evaluators and knowledge sharers to provide realistic, practical insights for other organisations beginning their own Social Impact Report journey. This presentation is suited to foundational and intermediate audiences who are curious about impact reporting or are preparing to undertake it for the first time.

Speakers

Claire Treadgold

National Manager, Research & Evaluation, Starlight Children's Foundation

Dr Claire Treadgold is the National Manager of Research and Evaluation for Starlight Children’s Foundation and an Adjunct Associate Professor with the Discipline of Paediatrics,UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney She has over twenty years' experience in for-purpose organisations... Read More →

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:00pm ACST
Waterfront 3 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Not for profit Philanthropy, Community and social services
ID 268

11:30am ACST

Case studies – an overlooked technique in evaluation?

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:00pm ACST

Waterfront 2

Authors: Alan Woodward, Alan Woodward Consulting, Leanne Kelly, Alfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University
Evaluations of community-based and place-based programs regularly require methods capable of examining context, relationships, and emergent outcomes. While case studies are a long-standing qualitative research approach, they are often under-utilized or misunderstood within evaluation practice. Drawing on the evaluation of Australian Red Cross’ Community Resilience Teams as an applied example, the presentation demonstrates how case study design enabled exploration of contextual dynamics, stakeholder perspectives, and underlying mechanisms that would not have been visible through survey or indicator-driven approaches alone. Participants will be offered practical guidance on when case studies are suitable and considerations for conducting case study activities.

Speakers

Alan Woodward

Principal, Alan Woodward Consulting

My evaluation experience is broad, ranging from the conduct of evaluations of programs and services, the commissioning of evaluations, the engagement of communities on evaluation activities, the design of evaluation strategies and capacity building within organisations. I work in... Read More →

Leanne Kelly

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:00pm ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Traditional and new ways

Format Short paper
Audience Level Advanced, Intermediate
Industry Community and social services, Public administration and safety, International development, Health and disability, Not for profit Philanthropy
ID 57

11:30am ACST

Ubuntu in Evaluation Practice: Bridging Traditional African Ways of Knowing with Contemporary Program Evaluation

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:00pm ACST

Waterfront 1

Author: Gerald Onsando, Ubuntu Impact Consulting

This short paper presents an Ubuntu-informed evaluation of the Black Rhinos Basketball Program, a grassroots community crime prevention initiative supporting young African Australians in metropolitan Melbourne. The topic centres on how traditional African ways of knowing, being, and valuing – specifically the African philosophy of Ubuntu – can be meaningfully integrated into contemporary evaluation practice to enhance cultural responsiveness, ethical engagement, and practical relevance in Australia.

The objective of the presentation is to demonstrate how Ubuntu philosophy, often articulated by the maxim “I am because we are”, was operationalised as both a conceptual and methodological foundation for evaluation, and why this culturally responsive approach matters in contexts where communities experience marginalisation and overrepresentation in justice systems. The importance of the topic lies in addressing persistent gaps in evaluation practice where dominant Western frameworks may inadequately capture relational, collective, and community-defined notions of value and impact.

The core argument is that Ubuntu offers a robust bridge between traditional and emerging evaluation approaches. Three key messages will be shared: first, how Ubuntu reframes evaluation purpose from individual outcomes to relational and collective wellbeing; second, how an Ubuntu transformative methodology supports culturally responsive design, data collection, and interpretation; and third, how the Ubuntu framework of support enables evaluators to assess social impact beyond conventional value-for-money metrics, including family connectedness, community engagement, and participation in society.

The presentation will be structured as a short paper, combining conceptual explanation with applied examples from the evaluation’s process and outcomes findings. To promote interactivity and engagement, the audience will be invited to reflect on their own evaluation contexts through guided prompts, considering when and how traditional philosophies like Ubuntu could reshape their evaluation designs and judgments of value.

Speakers

Gerald Onsando

Principal Consultant, Ubuntu Impact Consulting

Dr Gerald Onsando is a Queensland-based evaluation specialist and Principal Consultant at Ubuntu Impact Consulting, a practice grounded in the African relational philosophy of Ubuntu; “I am because we are”. Dr Onsando brings extensive experience across government, community, and... Read More →

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:00pm ACST
Waterfront 1 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Traditional and new ways

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Public administration and safety, Not for profit Philanthropy
ID 252

11:30am ACST

When the story turns against the evidence: Navigating media scrutiny as evaluators

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:30pm ACST

Rooms 3+4

Authors: Stephanie Carter (Healthconsult), Megan Anderson (Healthconsult), Felicity Miles (Healthconsult)

Evaluation findings do not exist in a vacuum. Evaluators increasingly operate in environments where public and media narratives form alongside, and sometimes ahead of, emerging evidence. In some cases, this scrutiny is heightened even when programs are demonstrating early signs of effectiveness.
This roundtable explores ethical, practical, and relational challenges evaluators face when evaluation findings are still emerging yet are already subject to public scrutiny, interpretation or debate.
This session will draw on real-world examples where early media attention was significant but subsided following the public release of independent evaluation findings, highlighting the role of timing, transparency and credibility in shaping public discourse.
Evaluators operate within complex social, cultural and political “places,” where narratives influence how evidence is understood and trusted. These dynamics are particularly relevant in place-based contexts, where community expectations and local perspectives shape interpretation and use of findings.
Participants will consider questions such as:
• What is the evaluator’s role when media scrutiny oversimplifies findings?
• How do we uphold principles of integrity and independence when public narratives are misaligned with evidence that is still being assessed?
• What strategies help evaluators support clients and communities when media attention becomes a risk?
• How can we strengthen transparent communication without breaching confidentiality or compromising methodological rigour?
The session will be highly interactive, and use structured facilitated reflection to encourage participants to share experiences, unpack dilemmas, and co-develop strategies.
This roundtable will generate practical principles and strategies through:
• Provocation scenarios based on real evaluation–media tensions to spark discussion.
• Small‑group discussion rounds where participants unpack dilemmas, share experiences, and co‑develop strategies.
• Collective synthesis where groups contribute key principles, strategies, and questions to a shared summary.

Speakers

Stephanie Carter

Healthconsult

Megan Anderson

Healthconsult

Felicity Miles

Healthconsult

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:30pm ACST
Rooms 3+4 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Ethics and integrity

Format Round table
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Not for profit Philanthropy, Health and disability, Public administration and safety, Community and social services
ID 244

11:30am ACST

Evaluating with the Vanua: A Practical Framework for Relational, Place Based Evaluation in Indigenous Contexts

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:30pm ACST

Rooms 1+2

Author: Elisabeta Torava
Evaluation practice in Indigenous communities across the Pacific and Australia often rely on Western tools that overlook relational obligations, kinship structures, and place based ethics. This session introduces a practical, culturally grounded evaluation approach based on vanua ontology, a relational worldview that positions land, people, and relationships as inseparable. Drawing from my doctoral research with iTaukei communities in Fiji, the session demonstrates how evaluators can design and implement evaluations that honour Indigenous values, strengthen relational accountability, and generate findings that communities recognise as meaningful.
The objective is to demonstrate how evaluators can redesign Western tools and methods to honour Indigenous relational ethics, strengthen cultural integrity, and generate findings that communities recognise and relate with. This work is important because many evaluation tools used across the Pacific and Australia continue to erase relational systems, producing invisibility, misinterpretation, and unintended harm.
The core argument is that evaluation practice must shift from individualistic, decontextualised measures to relational, place‑based approaches grounded in Indigenous worldviews. Three key messages will be shared:
- Western evaluation tools often embed assumptions that conflict with Indigenous relational logics.
- Vanua‑aligned principles offer a culturally coherent foundation for ethical, rigorous evaluation.
- Practical redesign is possible when evaluators centre relationships, place, and collective wellbeing.
Designed as a skill‑building session, the presentation uses hands‑on activities rather than lecture. Participants will analyse a standard Western evaluation tool, identify where invisibility occurs, and collaboratively redesign selected questions using vanua‑based principles. A case vignette and mapping template will guide this process.
Interactivity is promoted through small‑group work, collective mapping, movement‑based clustering, and facilitated dialogue. Participants will leave with a practical mini‑framework and concrete tools they can apply immediately in their own evaluation practice.

Speakers

Elisabeta Torava

Monash University

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:30pm ACST
Rooms 1+2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Traditional and new ways

Format Skill building
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Education and training, Economic development tourism and infrastructure, Environment and climate change, Natural resources and energy, Community and social services

11:30am ACST

Walking in Two Worlds: evaluating First Nations programs in the public sector

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:30pm ACST

Hall 2

Authors: Anna Rasalingam (Attorney-General’s Department), Daniel Maher (Attorney-General’s Department)
This presentation will demonstrate an example of an internal government evaluation team working with First Nations communities in both traditional and new ways.
It will cover the experience of a First Nations-led evaluation team evaluating a Federal Government program, actively overlaying culturally appropriate evaluation methods as they come up against historic government policies and commissioning practices. It will highlight these systemic barriers, our efforts to navigate these barriers to ensure First Nations voices are not only included but central.
From our experiences at the last AES conference, there was a re-occurring theme from fellow evaluators on working with First Nations communities with integrity. This presentation will provide an example of working with and centring First Nations voices.
Utilising the theme of “Walking in Two Worlds”, the presentation will explore dichotomies of traditional and new ways of evaluation within the public sector. Key points will include:

Historical colonial barriers of commissioning, designing and implementing evaluations impacting First Nations peoples.
Challenges of designing culturally responsive evaluations within this colonial paradigm.
Centring First Nations voices, lived experiences, wisdom and perspectives.

The Big Room format would provide flexibility to facilitate culturally appropriate engagement and discussion, including impactful multi-media presentation and in-person discussions.
The presentation will include multiple perspectives of ACCOs engaged in the evaluation as well as the evaluation team.
The presentation will engage participants through inviting shared experiences tackling these barriers and challenges in their work.

Speakers

Anna Rasalingam

Daniel Maher

Thursday September 17, 2026 11:30am - 12:30pm ACST
Hall 2

Traditional and new ways

Format Big room
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Health and disability, Community and social services, Public administration and safety, Education and training
ID 306

12:00pm ACST

Embedding Ethical Practice in an Evaluation Across Diverse Communities: Lessons from Bangladesh

Thursday September 17, 2026 12:00pm - 12:30pm ACST

Waterfront 1

Authors: Maud Mukova-Moses, Fred Hollows Foundation, A K M Badrul, Huq Fred Hollows Foundation, Jagath Happuhannadige, Fred Hollows Foundation
Reflecting on a predominantly qualitative evaluation, this paper explores how internally led evaluation can strengthen ethical practice, integrity, and inclusion in complex program settings. Drawing on The Fred Hollows Foundation’s mid-term evaluation of a Gender Equity, Disability and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) eye health project in Bangladesh, the paper examines how the evaluation navigated ethical practice in a context where power imbalances and language differences influenced whose voices were heard.

The evaluation engaged diverse groups, including ethnic minority communities and persons with disabilities. This raised practical ethical questions about language access, interpretation, voice and power. In navigating these complexities, the evaluation sought to incorporate equity, cultural sensitivity, and power-awareness to create space for diverse voices, reveal hidden barriers, and enable more ethical decision-making. Through use of document review, interviews, focus groups and a partner validation workshop, the evaluation intentionally foregrounded lived experience while maintaining analytical independence.

The paper demonstrates that ethical evaluation is not only about safeguarding participants, but also about how evaluators navigate competing priorities, institutional constraints, and contextual power dynamics. By conducting the evaluation internally, the team was able to deepen its understanding of gender, disability, and ethnic inclusion dynamics; build trust with community stakeholders; and generate insights that may have remained invisible.

The paper also explores tensions encountered during validation and interpretation: What does ethical evaluation look like when stakeholder priorities differ? How can evaluators recognise and address power dynamics within interviews, focus groups, and validation workshops? And how can evaluators transparently acknowledge limitations in ways that strengthen trust and learning? By sharing practical strategies and reflective insights, evaluators are invited to move beyond procedural compliance towards a deeper practice of relational accountability and integrity across diverse contexts. The paper offers practical examples of embedding ethical considerations into internal evaluation and using findings to inform practice improvement.

Speakers

Jagath Happuhannadige

Senior Program Quality Advisor, Fred Hollows Foundation

Maud Mukova-Moses

Fred Hollows Foundation

A K M Badrul Huq

Senior Program Manager - Bangladesh, The Fred Hollows Foundation

I am a development professional with approximately 16 years of experience, including eight years of engagement in evaluation-related work. My professional expertise includes monitoring and evaluation, disability inclusion, health program development, strategic planning, and evidence-informed... Read More →

Thursday September 17, 2026 12:00pm - 12:30pm ACST
Waterfront 1 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Ethics and integrity

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry International development
ID 98

12:00pm ACST

Impact beyond food: How Community Pantries function as places of social connection

Thursday September 17, 2026 12:00pm - 12:30pm ACST

Waterfront 2

Author: Joanne Cummings, Anglicare Sydney
Community food programs are commonly assessed through output-focused lenses, emphasising quantities of food or financial relief provided. This paper draws on a mixed methods evaluation of Anglicare Sydney’s Community Pantry program to argue for an expanded evaluative frame that recognises community pantries as third spaces—informal, non-commercial places beyond home and work where social connection, belonging and trust are built.

The evaluation combined customer and volunteer surveys (n=709), interviews and observations across 10 locations in NSW. While affordable food remained a critical entry point, findings show that many significant outcomes emerged through the Pantry’s role as a third space: a predictable, welcoming environment where people could linger, converse, build relationships and experience dignity without stigma. Customers reported reduced isolation, new friendships and feelings of belonging, while volunteers experienced increased wellbeing, purpose and community connection. These relational conditions also enabled “soft pathways” into further support services that were not easily captured through standard referral metrics alone.

The study offers several practical insights for evaluators. First, place-based programs require outcome frameworks that extend beyond material provision to include dignity, trust, connection and shifting social norms. Second, place itself should be treated as data: physical layouts, hospitality practices and local context shaped experiences and outcomes, making systematic observation an essential method. Third, mixed methods designs were vital for understanding not only what changed, but how third space dynamics generated change over time. Finally, incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives revealed benefits for communities and volunteers, which may be invisible in customer-based evaluations.

The presentation will walk through the mixed methods approach, share visual examples illustrating how place-based conditions shaped outcomes, and distil three key insights about the relational impact of community pantries. It will conclude with a guided reflection inviting participants to consider how they currently assess belonging, dignity and connection in their own work.

Speakers

Joanne Cummings

Senior Researcher, Anglicare Sydney

Thursday September 17, 2026 12:00pm - 12:30pm ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Ethics and integrity

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Community and social services, Not for profit Philanthropy
ID 32

12:00pm ACST

Evaluating ‘value for the public’: Public value as a framework for assessing impact

Thursday September 17, 2026 12:00pm - 12:30pm ACST

Waterfront 3

Authors: Danielle Thornton, The Social Research Centre, Stephen Cuttriss, The Social Research Centre
The concept of value is at the heart of evaluation, yet conventional approaches to assessing value tend to focus on effectiveness, utility or efficiency as defined by commissioning agencies and governments. Realist approaches can help push back against the insistence that programs meet narrowly conceived outcome metrics or return on investment but may still fail to capture the range of social benefits generated. The invisibility of these forms of value to policymakers and economists can lead to perverse outcomes: to the recommissioning of ‘effective’ programs of little obvious benefit to participants or the broader community, and the defunding of initiatives that may meet community needs but not policy agendas.

This disconnection, between the types of programs communities want and need, and the programs that get commissioned, feeds into cynicism and distrust of the political class and government as a whole, and left unchecked, risks weakening the social contract on which democratic governance rests.

In this context the concept of public value, that is the social value generated by governments when they act in the public interest, offers an alternative framework grounded in democratic values. Whether as a practical means of accounting for value where impact cannot be quantified, or as a form of evaluative practice which centres the lived experience of citizens, public value asks that we assess programs not only on the terms set by governments, but also the extent to which they contribute to our collective wellbeing.

Drawing on lessons from an evaluation of a program designed to promote respectful sexual relationships among young people, this paper explores the applicability of public value as a framework for accounting for a wider range of social impacts and a method for making an assessment not of ‘value for money’, but the benefits generated for and on behalf of the public.

Speakers

Danielle Thornton

Senior Research Consultant, The Social Research Centre

Stephen Cuttriss

Research Director, The Social Research Centre

Thursday September 17, 2026 12:00pm - 12:30pm ACST
Waterfront 3 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Short paper
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Public administration and safety, Community and social services
ID 318

1:30pm ACST

Walking alongside each other at the pace of trust: how evaluation is only the destination

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:00pm ACST

Waterfront 3

Authors: Skye Gooch, Djirra, Rebecca Steunenberg, Djirra, Lesly Zambrano, Djirra ,Taylor Rawson, Djirra
Djirra is proposing short paper presentation about our experience of designing a self-determined program and Monitoring and Evaluation Framework using an Aboriginal-led participatory approach for our specialist Alcohol and Other Drugs service. We aim to demonstrate the value of Aboriginal-led participatory program design approaches.

In our short paper, we will cover the three following core learnings:

•The power of relationships
At Djirra, our Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Officers are embedded in each program area, and our Program Development Lead is also an internal role. The roles' positioning fosters strong, trusting relationships with the teams. This relational approach allows for the design of a rich and empowered program design, for Aboriginal people, by Aboriginal people.
•Walking at the pace of trust
We had the opportunity to take our time with this process, allowing the space for trusting and dynamic dialogue to be fostered. We saw many benefits to this approach, such as the Program Development staff guiding the team while still being led by their expertise, allowing everyone to be able to deeply consider their practice and the evolution of the project, and time to centre rich data and narratives, making the vision and impact about more than just numbers.
•The design journey becomes an outcome in itself
In doing the program design in this approach, the overall process achieved outcomes in being completed itself. By the end of the project, we saw mutual benefits for everyone. Our Program Development staff grew deeper knowledge of the team’s deep and complex context, and the team itself grew their skills and knowledge of systems work.

We aim to deliver this in a slide show format, focusing on engaging visuals and simplicity. We will be opening the presentation up to the audience at the end for a yarn with the presenters.

Speakers

Skye Gooch

Manager of Individual Support Services, Djirra

Rebecca Steunenberg

Team Leader of Alcohol and Other Drugs, Djirra

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:00pm ACST
Waterfront 3 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Short paper
Audience Level Intermediate
Industry Community and social services
ID 320

1:30pm ACST

From Panic to Practice: Putting AI to Work in Evaluation

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:00pm ACST

Rooms 1+2

Author: Dorothea Huber
Lessons management in emergency management typically relies on mixed method approaches, with qualitative analysis carrying much of the analytical burden. Evaluators are increasingly expected to synthesise large volumes of unstructured material under tight timeframes, often in resource constrained public sector environments. Against this backdrop, artificial intelligence is alternately framed as a threat to professional judgement or as a solution to chronic capacity pressures. This paper argues that both framings are unhelpful.

Rather than replacing evaluative expertise, this presentation positions AI as a methodological assistant that can undertake defined, low risk tasks while leaving interpretation, sense making and ethical judgement firmly with the evaluator. Using real world examples drawn from emergency management lessons processes, the paper explores where AI has demonstrated practical value across the evaluation lifecycle. These include rapid document triage, support for qualitative coding within pre specified frameworks, identification of recurring themes and contradictions, synthesis of lessons learned, and surfacing gaps that may be missed under time pressure.

The paper also addresses common methodological and governance concerns, including transparency, bias, over reliance on fluent outputs, and the risk of mistaking confidence for insight. It outlines practical strategies for supervised AI use that protect rigour, credibility and accountability, particularly in settings where evaluative findings must withstand scrutiny and inform high stakes decisions.

Structured as a short paper, the presentation will focus on three key messages: where AI adds genuine value; where it should not be used; and how evaluators can establish clear boundaries for its application. Audience interaction will be built in through targeted questions and discussion, inviting participants to share their own experiences of using—or choosing not to use—AI in evaluation practice. The presentation reframes the central question from whether AI is the enemy, to how evaluators can use it well.

Speakers

Dorothea Huber

Amsa

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:00pm ACST
Rooms 1+2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Public administration and safety
ID 292

1:30pm ACST

Making Space for multiple perspectives: Collaborative design of Value for Investment evaluations

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:00pm ACST

Waterfront 2

Author: Adrian Field, Dovetail Consulting
Value for Investment (VfI) is an emerging evaluation system that is gaining increasing traction internationally. The system is intentionally mixed methods, interdisciplinary and collaborative.
It is this collaborative positioning of VfI that this presentation is focused. In VfI framing, value draws from multiple perspectives of what makes a programme, intervention or policy valuable. Therefore, understanding and capturing value requires a fundamentally collaborative mindset, one that reaches beyond existing data sources and reporting, to explore from many different perspectives what it is that fundamentally matters about the intervention that is the evaluation’s focus.

This presentation draws on learning and approaches in exploring value through participatory design techniques. It will draw on approaches developed and refined across a range of VfI evaluations, in the health, mental health, justice, urban development, transport and creative sectors.
The session will describe a range of facilitative techniques adopted to draw on different stakeholders perspectives on value, and the strengths that they offer for building robust, relevant and actionable evaluations.

Using a VfI lens allied with participatory design techniques, the presentation will explore how value can be brought to life across key evaluation questions, theories of change and value propositions, evaluative rubrics, and collaborative sense-making.

Session participants will gain a clear sense of the possibilities and potential for applying participatory approaches in VfI, and the strengths these offer for evaluation practice.

Speakers

Adrian Field

Director, Dovetail Consulting

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:00pm ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Traditional and new ways

Format Short paper
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry International development, Community and social services, Arts and recreation services, Health and disability

1:30pm ACST

From commissioning to learning: how funders can help shape the conditions for meaningful evaluation

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:30pm ACST

Hall 2

Authors: Ximena Avalos (Ian Potter Foundation), Caroline Henwood (Ian Potter Foundation), Sarah Neill (Paul Ramsay Foundation), Jen Lorains (Childrens Ground), Adriaan Wolvaardt (Minderoo) , David Stuart (Creative Australia)

Philanthropy and other funding organisations play a powerful but often under examined role in shaping how evaluation is designed, resourced, interpreted, and used. While there is much discussion on approaches, methods, tools and capability, there is less attention paid to how funding structures, commissioning practices, and organisational cultures in funding organisations enable – or constrain – meaningful learning.

This session offers a funding perspective on different ways organisations try to “make space” for evaluation to be useful, ethical, and context-responsive. Drawing on experience from grantmaking organisations working across sectors and geographies, the session explores funders who are trying to shift beyond compliance-driven evaluation toward approaches that value learning, adaptation, and multiple ways of knowing.

The panel discussion will examine common pressure points – such as timelines, misaligned reporting expectations, and one-way data practices – and reflect on how these are often unintentionally created by funders and what funders are doing to try and address this. Panellists will discuss practical shifts funders are considering or making, including rethinking evaluation questions, sharing power over evidence, and supporting evaluation as a relational and iterative practice rather than a transactional product.

Rather than prescribing a single “right” model, the session invites dialogue across roles in the evaluation ecosystem, asking: what does good evaluation look like when funders actively value place, context, and relationships—and what changes when philanthropy sees itself as a learner, not just a commissioner?

Speakers

Jen Lorains

Director Research & Evaluation, Childrens Ground

Jen Lorains is the Director of Research & Evaluation at Children’s Ground. She works with each community to evaluate and evidence the impact of Children’s Ground’s empowerment, systems reform and integrated service platform.

Jen has undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications in applied social research and over 15 years experience designing and undertaking research and evaluation with communities and services. Her interest lies in working with communities to implement and evaluate approaches (within... Read More →

Ximena Avalos

Ian Potter Foundation

Caroline Henwood

Research, Evaluation and Learning Manager, Ian Potter Foundation

Adriaan Wolvaardt

Minderoo

Sarah Neill

MERL Manager, Paul Ramsay Foundation

David Stuart

Director Evaluation And Impact Measurement, Creative Australia

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:30pm ACST
Hall 2

Boundaries and bridges

Format Round table
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Not for profit Philanthropy

1:30pm ACST

Process tracing in practice: testing causal claims with mixed evidence

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:30pm ACST

Rooms 3+4

Author: Kizzy Gandy, Jacaranda Partners

Learning objective: Participants will be able to construct core and alternative hypotheses from a theory of change, design evidence tests to distinguish between them and make defensible causal claims.

Contribution analysis is now widely used in Australian evaluation practice, but many evaluators stop short of the next step: systematically testing whether something other than the program explains the observed outcomes. Process tracing does exactly this. It raises the rigour of causal claims not by collecting more data, but by being more deliberate about what the data needs to show — and what it would need to show if the alternative explanation were true instead.

This workshop uses a real evaluation of the Embrace Multicultural Mental Health Project as a case study. The Embrace evaluation combined contribution analysis and process tracing with a mixed-method design including a quasi-experimental quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. It produced a result that many evaluations encounter but few handle well: the quantitative analysis found the program had no detectable effect on key outcomes, yet qualitative evidence suggested it was working. Process tracing provided the analytical framework to distinguish between three plausible explanations — the program failed, the effects take time to materialise, or competing programs are producing the same outcomes.

Participants work through three structured exercises: translating a theory of change into core and alternative hypotheses; designing evidence tests that can distinguish between them; and applying evaluator judgement to weight mixed evidence and reach a defensible conclusion. Each exercise uses the Embrace case, with reflection prompts connecting the method to participants' own evaluations.

The workshop is aimed at intermediate to advanced evaluators working on complex programs.

Speakers

Kizzy Gandy

Jacaranda Partners

Thursday September 17, 2026 1:30pm - 2:30pm ACST
Rooms 3+4 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Skill building
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Community and social services, Education and training, International development, Health and disability, Economic development tourism and infrastructure
ID 79

2:00pm ACST

An open discussion on research and evaluation that works for remote communities

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:00pm - 3:00pm ACST

Waterfront 3

Authors: Jillian Marsh, School of Indigenous Australian Studies, Kate Dixon, Schools Plus, Laura Bird, Paul Ramsay Foundation
This panel features panellists representing all layers of the evaluation ecosystem, and focuses on an evaluation conducted in remote schools in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. This panel discussion will centre on the question: How can we, as an evaluation ecosystem, make space and value place in the design and implementation of programs, projects, and evaluations?

Our panel includes a representative from the evaluation funders, the program facilitator and a community-based representative. The panel will be facilitated by a member of our evaluation and research team who is leading the project. The discussion will reflect on and unpack some of the realities of negotiating a place-based evaluation in remote communities, and how these reflections effect planning, design and delivery of evaluations. Our funders will explain their priorities, what they are aiming to achieve and why they are funding the evaluation, as well as explaining why a place-based approach is important to them.

The program facilitator will discuss how this evaluation project complements other existing projects, as well as how it was designed and why it was designed in that way. Our community-based representative will talk about their role in the project and the value that they bring through their community-based expertise, experience and relationships. This panel offers a unique look at how space is created for collaborative evaluation design and implementation, and how place can be centred throughout all stages of evaluation, even in a national project.

Speakers

Jillian Marsh

Professor, Indigenous Knowledges, School Of Indigenous Australian Studies

Laura Bird

Paul Ramsay Foundation

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:00pm - 3:00pm ACST
Waterfront 3 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Ethics and integrity

Format Panel
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Not for profit Philanthropy, Education and training
ID 312

2:00pm ACST

Ignites

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:00pm - 3:00pm ACST

Waterfront 2

Ethics for Evaluation
Author: Trina O'Donnell, Bellberry
Why do we have ethics reviews, who makes up the HREC, and when is a HREC review required? What are common issues that arise in the review of evaluations from the HREC perspective?

How can these be addressed to make the ethics application process smoother? The session will focus on the ethics review in contexts such as community-based evaluation, and policy or program evaluation, and we will explore issues that arise from the ethics review from Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) for evaluation.

Practical insights from HREC reviews will exemplify common issues from a HREC perspective. Examples of common HREC comments will introduce issues including study design, consent, community engagement, respecting Indigenous perspectives and local knowledge, managing language and cultural differences, and responding ethically to the growing use of artificial intelligence and data technologies in evaluation.

Presence builds trust: How place-based engagement transformed participation in NSW First Nations Digital Inclusion evaluation
Authors: Megan Brewer, Nous Group, Rodney Williams, Nous Group, Taliah King, Nous Group
Evaluating programs with First Nations communities requires time, presence, and trust. An evaluation of First Nations Digital Inclusion meant learning and adapting, shifting to a snowballing, place‑based approach – spending extended time in community and working with trusted navigators through a three-way partnership model. Participation increased substantially. Being physically present in remote and regional communities enabled rapport‑building, referrals, and engagement with people unlikely to participate through conventional methods. Higher participation led directly to stronger survey response numbers, deeper qualitative insights, and more credible evaluation findings. We show why investing time in-place, relationships, and partnership is central to evaluation quality.

Cultural identity as a shield: Measuring the social value of Culture and Kinship
Authors: Louise Green, Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Lily Edwards
This presentation shares learnings from research by VACCHO and Victorian Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), exploring how strengthening Identity and Cultural connectedness and practice, drives positive long-term health and wellbeing outcomes.

Building on a 2022 evaluation of the Culture and Kinship Model, the research is driven and sustained by Aboriginal leadership and Cultural governance and uses a SROI methodology to understand drivers of change and inform future recommendations.

Supported by Kowa Collaboration, Aboriginal-led evaluation consultancy, the approach is grounded in culturally responsive stakeholder engagement — including Impact and Value Yarning — to enable participatory interpretation and translation of knowledge and evidence.

Shifting the power: evaluation enabled, embedded and used in local contexts
Authors: Jessie Meaney-Davis Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Satib Nisha Khan Khan, Birth Fiji, Mary Raori, Australian Volunteers Program (Fiji)
Organisational capacity assessments in international development are often experienced by organisations in Asia and the Pacific as externally driven compliance exercises, disconnected from everyday decision-making. This paper presents an alternative model in which 14 organisations in Fiji, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam — including some with no prior research experience — led participatory research on organisational capacity strengthening over three years, supported by the Australian Volunteers Program and the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney.

Drawing on reflections from BIRTH Fiji, the paper identifies three interrelated shifts in power. First, embedding evaluative inquiry into organisational routines created space for learning and reflection in contexts dominated by delivery pressures and compliance-focused monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL). Evaluation became a tool for adaptation and strategic thinking rather than reporting alone. Second, organisations developed confidence, skills, and ownership by leading the evaluation process themselves, with external actors acting as facilitators rather than controllers. Evaluation therefore contributed directly to organisational capacity strengthening. Third, the process fostered peer learning across the 14 organisations, creating horizontal networks of exchange and redistributing knowledge and influence away from donor-centric models. The paper argues that meaningful power shifts in evaluation require locally led, embedded, and sustained evaluative practice.

Brokering and interpreting evaluation: An iTaukei experience
Authors: Marilyn Vilisoni, Solve Pacific Consultancy
This presentation follows an iTaukei (Fijian) evaluator’s transition from a donor‑driven MEL role to independent consultancy, where evaluation becomes an act of brokering between donor logic and Indigenous priorities grounded in the preservation and revitalisation of iTaukei (Fijian) culture and traditions. It highlights three insights: (i) the evaluator’s role as a cultural broker navigating the space between external accountability and Indigenous values; (ii) the importance of cultural humility, emotional intelligence, and comfort with ambiguity in this intermediary work; and (iii) the centrality of trust in shaping MEL systems that honour both accountability requirements and the lived realities of Pacific communities.

Speakers

Louise Green

Strategic Project Manager - Culture and Kinship, VACCHO

Rodney Williams

Principal, Nous Group

Rodney is an Aboriginal man (Guwa/Koa) with diverse industry experience across the private, public and community sectors where he has held board, senior executive and management roles. He brings over 25 years’ experience in consulting, Indigenous economic development, banking and... Read More →

Marilyn Vilisoni

Managing Director, Solve Pacific

Lily Edwards

Project Officer, Wathaurong

Megan Brewer

Director, Nous Group

Trina O'Donnell

Director Of Strategic Projects, Bellberry

Satib Nisha Khan Khan

Founder and CEO, Birth Fiji

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:00pm - 3:00pm ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Ignite session

Format Ignite
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Arts and recreation services, Community and social services, Economic development tourism and infrastructure, Education and training, Environment and climate change, Health and disability, Information media and telecommunications, Natural resources and energy, No
ID 93, 146, 148, 200, 290, 2

2:00pm ACST

Is there room in the C-suite for evaluators?

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:00pm - 3:00pm ACST

Rooms 1+2

Authors: Dana Cross, Piacarmel Andrews, Lyn Alderman

Across sectors, evaluators are increasingly seeking to move beyond assessing programs to shaping strategy, informing investment, strengthening accountability and supporting learning. Recent initiatives such as the Strengthening Evaluation in the Australian Government – Action Plan 2026–2030, with its emphasis on evaluation leadership, culture and use (and a call for Chief Evaluation Officers), reflect a broader trend: evaluation is being positioned as a core contributor to governance and decision making rather than a purely technical or advisory function.

This shift raises a provocative and timely question for the evaluation community: is there room in the C-suite for evaluators?

The presenters will explore whether closer proximity to executive power is necessary to strengthen evaluation’s influence and what might be gained or lost in the process. Rather than assuming that seniority automatically delivers impact, the discussion will examine different models of leadership, authority and positioning for evaluation across diverse organisational contexts.

Presenters will explore tensions such as:

Whether executive level access enhances evaluation use or risks compromising independence and credibility.
How evaluation leadership can be exercised without formal C suite roles.
What “good” evaluation leadership looks like in different sectors, cultures and places

Drawing on lived experience from across settings, the panel will reflect on how evaluation currently shows up, or fails to show up, in senior decision making forums, and what alternatives exist for strengthening its influence. Audience pulse questions will be used to give live insights to broader experiences and views, with time for questions at the end of the session inviting participants to share perspectives from their own contexts and challenge assumptions about status, power and professional identity in evaluation.

Speakers

Dana Cross

Associate Director, Grosvenor Public Sector Advisory

Dana is a public sector expert, possessing over 17 years of deep experience advising government organisations on program evaluation, organisational review, service optimisation and performance management. She is a member of Grosvenor’s Executive Leadership Team as Head of Strategy... Read More →

Lyn Alderman

The Evaluators' Collective

Piacarmel Andrews

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:00pm - 3:00pm ACST
Rooms 1+2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Round table
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Not for profit Philanthropy, Economic development tourism and infrastructure, Arts and recreation services, Community and social services, Environment and climate change, Education and training, Health and disability, Information media and telecommunications, Nat

2:30pm ACST

Monitoring on a shoestring: How reproducible reporting can help make better use of data.

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:30pm - 3:00pm ACST

Rooms 3+4

Authors: Stephanie Quail (ARTD), Sophie Henness (ARTD)

Non-government organisations (NGOs) and small organisations often face a range of barriers, such as limited funding and staffing, to collecting, analysing, and utilising client and program data to support continuous improvement and decision making. For these organisations, taking an empowerment evaluation approach, which enables them to assess and improve their own programs while building capacity and ownership, has the potential to provide sustainable and ongoing value. Empowerment evaluation strengthens organisational capacity and equips organisations with tools to collect, analyse, and interpret data for ongoing program improvement.

This presentation explores low-cost and high-impact opportunities for embedding monitoring, as demonstrated by our recent work with Bonnie’s Support Service to develop internal capability to administer and analyse a new client satisfaction survey. We will highlight common challenges for small NGOs, and our approaches for setting up monitoring on a shoestring, including:

How data is collected, including an overview of free or low-cost survey platforms, and their advantages and disadvantages
How data is analysed, including how the free, open-source software R can be used to set up reproducible analysis that once established can be re-used without needing internal quantitative expertise
How reports and other outputs are created, including how polished reports incorporating text, figures and tables can be generated using R.

Audience members will leave this presentation with an understanding of common challenges to setting up and analysing client satisfaction survey data, the advantages and disadvantages of available open-source platforms, and practical approaches for setting up reproducible analysis and reports. Attendees will receive a free online toolkit we have developed which organisations can use to guide the development of their own low-cost monitoring and reproducible reporting.

Speakers

Stephanie Quail

Senior Manager, ARTD

Sophie Henness

ARTD Consultants

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:30pm - 3:00pm ACST
Rooms 3+4 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Community and social services, Not for profit Philanthropy
ID 276
about <br>

2:30pm ACST

When Worlds Collide: Evaluation at the Intersection of Policy, Curriculum and School Improvement

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:30pm - 3:00pm ACST

Hall 2

Authors: Zina Baghi (NSW Department Of Education), Annette Waters (NSW Department Of Education)
What happens when evaluation is asked to make sense of a program that simultaneously spans curriculum reform, evidence-based resource design, data analytics and school capability-building - across thousands of schools, amid widespread disruption? This paper presents the findings of a process evaluation of a large-scale government education program and uses that experience to interrogate what evaluation distinctively contributes when it operates at the boundaries of multiple disciplines, sectors and organisational roles.
Operating within a complex policy space - where multiple related initiatives ran concurrently, each targeting overlapping aspects of school improvement - the program layered differentiated support from self-directed access to quality-assured, evidence-based resources, through to shoulder-to-shoulder guidance from educational leaders. Evaluating this required the team to engage fluently with education research, data analytics, evidence-based pedagogy, professional learning design and school improvement methodology - not as a methodological luxury, but as a necessity for understanding what was working, for whom, and why.
The evaluation also operated across organisational boundaries. Two evaluation teams, one embedded within the program's delivery unit, the other in a central evaluation function, worked concurrently on different components, with findings integrated into a shared report. This arrangement surfaces rarely examined questions about co-production, methodological consistency and what happens to evaluation's integrity when the boundary between evaluator and implementer is not just navigated but structurally blurred.
The findings reveal where bridges within the program held and where they fractured: between system policy intent and school-level practice, between co-designed improvement partnerships and variable local capacity, and between a program designed predominantly for primary schools and a secondary sector left largely overlooked. For the evaluation community, this paper argues that understanding these fractures - and building the cross-disciplinary bridges needed to address them - is precisely where evaluation's value is most needed, and most often undersold.

Speakers

Annette Waters

NSW Department Of Education

Zina Baghi

NSW Department Of Education

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:30pm - 3:00pm ACST
Hall 2

Boundaries and bridges

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Education and training
ID 291

2:30pm ACST

Strengthening engagement with evaluation through the Signs of Success Framework

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:30pm - 3:00pm ACST

Waterfront 1

Authors: Giulia Capuzzo NSW DCCEEW, Liam Downing, Transport NSW, Tess Gordon, PLACE
Evaluators increasingly face the challenge of conducting evaluation in complex systems where diverse voices, shifting power dynamics and competing priorities shape both the process and products of evaluative work. This presentation shares practical insights from a Signs of Success (SoS) framework as applied in the NSW Department of Education. The framework is an adaptive impact measurement and reporting approach that foregrounds stakeholder engagement, transparency and shared ownership.

The session explores the cogeneration of concise sets of sequential outcome measures from full program theories with evaluators and program owners. We will demonstrate how this supported participatory evaluation practice by recognising stakeholder values and redistributing power in evidence generation. To support equity in program outcomes, the Signs of Success also surfaced enabling conditions, shifting conversations from sole attribution to the evaluand toward systemic responsibility.

We also found that strong relationships and ongoing skill‑building formed the foundations of the collaboration between evaluators and program owners. Building a strong evaluative culture was essential for conversations around prioritisation of resources as the program matured along its path of impact.

Our objective in this session is to demonstrate how evaluators can embed integrity, inclusion and accountability within system-level evaluation processes while supporting program improvement and public value. By fostering transparent decision making and adaptive processes, we will show how this approach created space for open dialogue about progress, uncertainty and failure where program owners felt confident using evidence to guide decisions, even at the highest levels of governance and accountability.

This session will appeal to intermediate and advanced evaluators who regularly work with leaders and decision makers. It aligns with the Roots and Routes theme by showcasing how evaluation can strengthen evaluative culture, improve communication with decisionmakers and ensure evaluation remains credible amid increasing complexity.

Speakers

Giulia Capuzzo

Senior Project Officer Evaluation, NSW DCCEEW

Thursday September 17, 2026 2:30pm - 3:00pm ACST
Waterfront 1 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Short paper
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Education and training
ID 122

3:30pm ACST

From insight to action: A pragmatic, participatory approach to improving cancer clinical trial systems

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST

Waterfront 3

Author: Cally Jennings, Commission On Excellence And Innovation In Health
Change in complex systems rarely fails because of a lack of ideas. It fails because people do not share a common understanding of what needs to change, or why. This presentation describes a pragmatic, participatory process used to develop shared priorities for improving cancer clinical trial start‑up across South Australia.

In 2025, the South Australian Comprehensive Cancer Network, working with the Commission on Excellence and Innovation in Health, led a statewide review of ethics and governance processes for cancer clinical trials across public, private, and regional providers. The aim was to develop a shared understanding of how the system operates in practice and to identify agreed priorities for improvement.

A mixed qualitative approach, which included structured interviews, sponsor surveys, comparative system mapping and facilitated workshops, was used. These methods were selected to identify variation across sites, highlight common bottlenecks, and draw on interstate and international examples to explore what good could look like. The findings were synthesised into a concise set of system‑level insights and tested through collaborative workshops to identify a small number of priorities that formed the foundation of a broader reform program.

The presentation will share three lessons:
1.How participatory process methods can build shared understanding and readiness for change.
2.How participatory approaches can promote ownership but also reveal the limits of readiness for change.
3.Why even well designed, collaborative processes must demonstrate early wins to build and maintain trust.

Designed for a foundational to intermediate audience, the session will invite participants to reflect on balancing rigour with pragmatism, including exploring how early evidence and shared insight can move complex systems from talking about change to taking the first steps.

Speakers

Cally Jennings

Strategic Lead - Research Translation And Impact, Commission On Excellence And Innovation In Health

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST
Waterfront 3 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Health and disability, Public administration and safety
ID 187

3:30pm ACST

Is the value of evaluation hiding in the shadows?

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST

Rooms 3+4

Authors: Robert Grimshaw (Australian Taxation Office), Megan Lugg (Australian Taxation Office)

As evaluation practitioners in a large government agency, we recognise the value of learning and insights created by applying evaluation thinking, tools and techniques at all stages of the policy or program life cycle. We’re less practiced however in naming and demonstrating to decision-makers and other diverse stakeholders the value created from applying evaluation thinking and practices long before a final evaluative judgment is made and reported.

In this presentation we will share practical examples of how evaluation strengthens the design of new programs early in their development and causes reflection on the appropriateness of established, long-standing programs.

We will use a case study related to the ATO shadow economy program to share experiences and reflections of observed value created for program management and decision making by applying evaluation thinking and practices early in and throughout the program cycle – leading to a stronger evidence base and improved policy response. This provides a practical demonstration of Gullickson’s (2020) discussion of how defining evaluation to include activities that ‘fully describe’ the evaluand allows space for us to ‘explain…how what we have done…fits into the general process of evaluation.’

We will also share reflections from a recent evaluation of our own Evaluation Hub activities that provide valuable insights and lessons for collaborating with and developing the evaluation capability of people from diverse roles and disciplines. This includes findings about commonly used evaluation capacity building approaches including leading a community of practice, delivering learning events and resources, and providing expert advice and support.

Our observations are positioned within the context of how we anticipate continued steady progress over time. As McDonald, Rogers and Kefford (2003) recommend, it’s important to both allow sufficient time to build evaluation capacity, and ‘to quickly and repeatedly get ‘points on the board’, to be seen as…of some use immediately’.

Speakers

Megan Lugg

Director, Evaluation and Performance Measurement, Australian Taxation Office

Robert Grimshaw

Evaluation Manager, ATO

Robert works in the Australian Taxation Office Evaluation Hub, helping business areas to build their evaluation culture, capacity and practice. This includes providing advice and support for using fit-for-purpose evaluation to inform evidence-based policy and program delivery, and... Read More →

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST
Rooms 3+4 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Short paper
Audience Level Intermediate
Industry Public administration and safety
ID 161

3:30pm ACST

Culturally Governed Evaluation: Reframing First Nations Engagement from Consultation and Co-design to Governance

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST

Hall 2

Authors: Sarah Jane Springer (Springer Health Consultants), Catherine Boekel (Whereto Research)
Evaluation involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has historically positioned First Nations engagement as a consultation activity occurring after evaluation priorities, frameworks and methods have already been determined. Even approaches framed as co-design can unintentionally reproduce existing power structures in knowledge generation and limit the capacity of evaluation to reflect First Nations governance, priorities and ways of knowing.

This paper introduces the Culturally Governed Evaluation Framework, an emerging methodological approach that embeds First Nations authority within the governance structures that determine evaluation purpose, design, interpretation and accountability. In this approach, engagement is not positioned as advisory input, but as a governance function within the evaluation system itself.

The framework is grounded in three interconnected principles:

First Nations authority, embedding leadership within governance structures that shape priorities and definitions of success;
Relational accountability, ensuring evaluation is grounded in trust, reciprocity and sustained engagement; and
Shared interpretation, enabling findings to be interpreted through First Nations knowledge systems with shared authority in meaning-making.

By foregrounding governance and relational accountability, this approach contributes to national discussions on ethics, power and methodological legitimacy. It aligns with reform agendas including the National Agreement on Closing the Gap and has direct implications for how evaluation is commissioned, governed and interpreted across government, research and community settings.

The presentation will invite critical reflection on how culturally governed approaches can reshape evaluation practice and strengthen both the legitimacy and effectiveness of evaluation outcomes.

Speakers

Sarah Jane Springer

Springer Health Consultants

Catherine Boekel

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST
Hall 2

Ethics and integrity

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Health and disability, Public administration and safety, Community and social services, Education and training
ID 228

3:30pm ACST

Uncertain impacts, real decisions: measuring and communicating causal uncertainty in quantitative evaluations

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST

Waterfront 1

Author: Dimitria Gavalyugova, NSW Department of Education
Evaluators face a core dilemma: decision-makers typically expect a definitive measure of program impact, yet the designs capable of delivering one are rarely feasible for large-scale government programs. Quasi-experimental methods and administrative data are often the only tools available to quantify long-term outcomes, but the assumptions needed to establish causal impact cannot always be met – or tested – with available data. This mismatch has driven evaluations into a sub-optimal equilibrium where uncertainty is understated, even though addressing it could lead to better-informed decisions. This presentation explores how to reconcile the need for reporting actionable findings with what the evidence can support.

The session draws on systematic analysis of the 22 combined outcome and economic evaluations published in the NSW Treasury library. By mapping the confidence of causal language attributing outcomes to programs across report sections, the analysis identifies a persistent "within-document gap." In many cases, findings are treated as causal in executive summaries and recommendations, even when underlying methodologies note that they should be interpreted with caution. Scoring each estimation strategy against a risk-of-bias framework reveals observable misalignment between evaluations’ methodological constraints and the confidence of causal claims.

When causality is uncertain, the program effect that gets monetised in economic evaluations contains the true impact plus some degree of bias. Existing guidance addresses uncertainty around monetary parameters and discount rates, but not around estimated program impacts. In the absence of such guidance, the evidence shows that potentially biased estimates routinely enter cost-benefit analyses as true effects. Using an anonymised real-world example, the presentation demonstrates how even small levels of bias can alter benefit-cost ratios and funding recommendations.

The session invites participants to collectively explore practical solutions across four areas: leveraging available methods and data to strengthen evidence, turning limitations into guidance for future evaluation design, communicating uncertainty effectively, and modelling uncertain impacts within economic analyses.

Speakers

Dimitria Gavalyugova

Senior Research and Evaluation Officer, NSW Department of Education

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:00pm ACST
Waterfront 1 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Traditional and new ways

Format Short paper
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Education and training, Health and disability, Economic development tourism and infrastructure, Community and social services, Public administration and safety
ID 323

3:30pm ACST

Finding your space - the psychological, organisational and political dynamics of being a resilient evaluator

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:30pm ACST

Waterfront 2

Authors: John Stoney, DSS, Kim Grey, AES President, Ruth Nicholls, Australian Centre for Evaluation, Samantha Mayes, Systems, Planning and Analysis Australia
The idea of keeping going in the face of obstacles is a recurring cultural theme: Nelson Mandela asked us not to judge him by his successes, but by how often he fell down and got back up again. Wise evaluator Eleanor Chelimsky told us that evaluators need to understand our context to win allies and collaborate.

The panel aims to support practitioners to identify, understand and navigate challenges from ethical, good practice and self-care perspectives.

The panel draws on many sources - our favourite proverbs and inspiring leaders - as well as psychology, philosophy and the evaluation literature.

The beneficial effects of identity and belonging will be unpacked, along with how each of us can nurture these powerful drivers of self-care through engaging with evaluation as a profession. This draws on social identity theory and the evidence for the ‘social cure’, which suggests that social groups and a sense of community may be as beneficial as regular exercise - promoting adjustment, coping and well-being.

What do evaluators think supports their resilience? Research into evaluator resilience identifies features of individual and institutional dimensions that support adaptability, including soft skills, relationships, communication skills, flexibility, and professional confidence to refer to codes of ethics, plus organisational mechanisms for discussing rigour and integrity with stakeholders, managers or commissioners, normalising ethical practice.

We’ll also explore the contexts in which we often practice - the barriers, set-backs or cycles, in the dynamic world that evaluation is part of, including the drivers of expansion and contraction in evaluation activity, variation across levels of change (global, national, organisational or people driven), and the dynamic interacting forces that drive cycles to flow at varying or contradictory pace. This can have implications for us as practitioners, requiring adaptability, resilience and self-care, but can also affect the evaluation discipline and profession.

Speakers

Kim Grey

President, Australian Evaluation Society

Ruth Nicholls

Director - Evaluation Leadership, Policy and Capability, Australian Centre for Evaluation

I live and work on Ngunnawal Country. I’ve worked in research and evaluation roles for over 20 years, mainly within government across of range of social policy including health, disability, community development, and First Nations contexts. In my current role with the Australian... Read More →

Samantha Mayes

Lead - Evaluation and Review, Systems, Planning and Analysis Australia

Social policy evaluation

John Stoney

Assistant Director, DSS

I’m an Assistant Director in the Evaluation Hub in the Department of Social Services. With my team mates I provide technical advice and support on evaluation to policy and program colleagues across the department. I also help deliver the Evaluation Readiness Service (ERS) which... Read More →

Thursday September 17, 2026 3:30pm - 4:30pm ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Long paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Environment and climate change, Health and disability, Public administration and safety
ID 192

4:00pm ACST

Quality evaluation that makes a difference: continuing the conversation

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST

Rooms 3+4

Author: Carina Calzoni, AES Rob Sale, nous

The AES has been exploring its vision of “quality evaluation that makes a difference” through a strategic project - engaging members and examining evaluation theory and practice. This work has surfaced a central challenge: while the phrase is compelling, its meaning is complex, contested, and shaped by context.

This roundtable begins from that complexity—but does not seek to resolve it. Instead, it focuses on what comes next.
We will briefly share insights from the journey so far, including the multiple dimensions of “evaluation”, “quality”, and “making a difference”. These span tensions between evaluation as process, product, and profession; competing perspectives on quality (e.g. standards, utility, impact, values); and diverse understandings of use and influence across contexts and stakeholders.

The primary purpose of the session is to co-design how this conversation continues across the AES community. Participants will engage in facilitated small-group discussions to explore key questions: What does quality evaluation mean in your context? Who defines it? What does “making a difference” look like—and for whom? How should these conversations evolve as contexts, practice, and membership change?

Participants will then work together to identify practical ways to sustain and deepen engagement, such as ongoing communities of practice, publications, podcasts, or future conference formats. The session will capture and share these ideas to inform AES’s ongoing work.

Designed for intermediate to advanced evaluators, this roundtable creates space for collective reflection and future-oriented dialogue. By centring plurality and participation, it supports the AES vision by keeping the conversation alive—recognising that what constitutes “quality evaluation that makes a difference” must continue to evolve with the field.

Speakers

Rob Sale

Nous

Carina Calzoni

AES

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST
Rooms 3+4 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Round table
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Arts and recreation services, Economic development tourism and infrastructure, Community and social services, Education and training, Environment and climate change, Health and disability, Information media and telecommunications, International development, Natur
ID 266

4:00pm ACST

Strengthening community mental wellbeing through culturally grounded and practical evaluation tools in Vanuatu.

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST

Rooms 1+2

Author: Michael Taiki, Lokol Solutions

This Skill Building session introduces three practical, culturally grounded evaluation tools developed through Churches of Christ Vanuatu’s (CCCV) mental wellbeing work: the Faith + Data Model, the Youth Risk‑Mapping Tool and Trauma‑Informed Storian Circles. These tools emerged from a multi‑year program involving a 1,110‑household Urban Study, youth behavioural data, earthquake trauma responses and community‑driven interventions. The session addresses a core challenge in evaluation: how to design methods that are rigorous, culturally resonant and effective in low‑resource, cross‑cultural settings.
The objective of the presentation is to equip evaluators with adaptable tools that integrate community evidence, kastom practices and faith‑based strengths to strengthen mental wellbeing systems. This topic is important because evaluators increasingly work in culturally diverse contexts where Western evaluation methods alone are insufficient for capturing lived experience, trauma, and relational dynamics.
The presentation advances three key messages:
1.Evaluation must integrate cultural and spiritual knowledge with data to produce meaningful insights.
2.Youth wellbeing requires rapid, context‑specific assessment tools that identify patterns of risk and guide targeted interventions.
3.Trauma‑aware, culturally grounded qualitative methods can generate rich data while supporting community healing and resilience.
Each tool is introduced through a short demonstration using real CCCV examples, followed by a structured group activity where participants apply the tool to a scenario. This design ensures that participants not only understand the concepts but also practice using them in a supportive environment.
The session will be interactive through small‑group exercises, reflective discussions and scenario‑based problem‑solving. Participants will map youth risks, design a Storian Circle prompt and apply the Faith + Data Model to a community case study. These activities encourage peer learning, cultural reflection and practical skill development.
By the end of the session, participants will leave with three adaptable tools they can apply immediately in their own evaluation contexts.

Speakers

Michael Taiki

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST
Rooms 1+2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Skill building
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Community and social services
ID 136

4:00pm ACST

A social worker, an astrophysicist and an economist walk into a bar...

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST

Waterfront 1

Authors: Kate Cherry, CSIRO, Jake Clark, CSIRO, David Marchant, Inform Economics
Stepping into the unknown and daunting space of economic evaluation represented a new challenge for the Impact and Evaluation team in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Education and Outreach. In collaboration with our more experienced guide, external consultant Inform Economics, we successfully delivered a cost benefit analysis of CSIRO’s Generation STEM Links program, funded by the New South Wales Government through the Science and Industry Endowment Fund. This evaluation generated valued learnings for all involved and created new impact evidence. This economic evidence was utilised by our program delivery and industry engagement teams and was significant to our government funders and current public policy.

Economic evaluations are a rare approach in program evaluation, and almost non-existent in the STEM education sector, which prioritises learning outcomes and lacks economic evaluation capability. Navigating between theory and the realities of practice to deliver a cost-benefit analysis was challenging; by sharing our experiences and learnings we aim to inspire others to take up the challenge.

As Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO has been engaging partners in STEM education programs and evaluations for over 40 years. The Impact and Evaluation team is generating and sharing new evidence to inform practice and decision-making in our work and the STEM education ecosystem.

This session features insights from CSIRO and Inform Economics, with a focus on their collaboration to undertake a cost benefit analysis. This session will cover:

•deciding to undertake an economic evaluation
•data collection and analysis methods used
•capabilities required to do a CBA
•findings from the Generation STEM Links cost-benefit analysis
•experiences of this cross-sector partnership
•key lessons learned from the project and future implications

This session will be of interest to those have undertaken or are considering undertaking an economic evaluation.

Speakers

Kate Cherry

Principal Advisor, Impact and Evaluation, CSIRO

Jake Clark

Principal Advisor, Impact and Evaluation, CSIRO

Dr Jake Clark is a Principal Advisor within CSIRO’s Education and Outreach Impact and Evaluation Team, where he leads the design and implementation of monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) tools for the STEM Community Partnerships Program. He brings extensive expertise in quasi-experimental... Read More →

David Marchant

Founder and Managing Director, Inform Economics

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST
Waterfront 1 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Long paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Education and training
ID 225

4:00pm ACST

Looking upstream and downstream: longitudinal case studies of climate and water resilience

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST

Waterfront 3

Authors: Stuart Raetz, Climate Resilient Communities, Primatia Romana Wulandari, Alinea International
This panel will explore and contrast Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) insights from two Australian international development investments undertaking evaluative longitudinal case studies that aim to monitor changes in community and institutional resilience over an extended period: The Australian Water Partnership (AWP) and Climate Resilient Communities (CRC). AWP are retrospectively studying 10 years of water governance investments (2015–2025), while CRC are undertaking evaluative case studies of how communities are adapting to climate change in five countries (Kiribati, Tonga, Fiji, Cambodia and Timor-Leste) in the Indo Pacific (2026 – 2029).

Drawing on emerging insights, evidence and learnings from these two programs the session will explore the enabling conditions that support community and institutional resilience in a changing climate.

The panel will discuss how:

1.Different vantage points reveal different resilience dynamics. AWP’s retrospective longitudinal analysis uncovers patterns of institutional strengthening, governance adaptation, and enabling conditions that only emerge over time, while CRC’s evaluative case studies will illuminate how climate resilience is context specific and driven by locally led adaptation practices.

2.Complementary methodologies strengthen evaluative insight. Both programs use participatory, outcome oriented, and complexity sensitive approaches—providing methodological alignment while generating distinct, mutually reinforcing evidence streams.

3.Integrated evidence supports better climate informed programming. When institutional governance evidence is paired with forward looking community insights, development programs gain stronger foundations for policy engagement, climate integration, and long-term investment planning.

The panel will provide illustrative examples from programming to contrast retrospective and forward-looking approaches to longitudinal case studies.

Audience interaction will be promoted through short provocations and facilitated reflection that will elicit insights from the audience. The panel will support a practical understanding of the challenges and opportunities in monitoring and evaluating resilience and stimulate discussion on how MEL can help programs to navigate complexity in a changing climate.

Speakers

Stuart Raetz

Monitoring, Evaluation And Learning Lead, Climate Resilient Communities

Primatia Romana Wulandari

Senior Consultant, Alinea International

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST
Waterfront 3 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Roots and routes

Format Panel
Audience Level Intermediate
Industry Environment and climate change, International development, Natural resources and energy
ID 210

4:00pm ACST

Meeting new challenges with better theories of change

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST

Hall 2

Authors: Patricia Rogers, Footprint Evaluation Initiative, Emil Laurberg Morgensen, University of Southern Denmark
Theories of change are now commonly used to design initiatives, including projects, programs and policies, and to shape monitoring and evaluation. But 40 years after first being showcased at an AES conference, these are often developed and used in ways that don’t fit what is needed, especially to support adaptation across different settings and in changing contexts. This session will present common mistakes, what they are, why they matter, and examples of better strategies. Participants will engage with exercises to identify issues, try out strategies and explore possible applications in their own work and in shaping organisational requirements and procedures.

Speakers

Patricia Rogers

Co-founder, Footprint Evaluation Initiative

Founder of BetterEvaluation and former Professor of Public Sector Evaluation at RMIT University. Now working as consultant and advisor. My work has focused on supporting appropriate choice and use of evaluation methods and approaches to suit purposes and context. I am currently working... Read More →

Emil Laurberg Mogensen

Odense University Hospital, Department Of Clinical Research, University Of Southern Denmark

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:00pm - 5:00pm ACST
Hall 2

Traditional and new ways

Format Skill building
Audience Level Intermediate, Advanced
Industry Education and training, Natural resources and energy, Community and social services, International development, Health and disability
ID 307

4:30pm ACST

Making Space for Evaluation: How the UK and Australia Are Improving Evaluation Across Government

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:30pm - 5:00pm ACST

Waterfront 2

Author: Lucie Moore, Commonwealth Treasury
Across governments, there is growing recognition of the need to make space for high quality evidence and embed evaluation into policy design and decision‑making. This presentation examines what two national governments, the UK and Australia, are doing to improve the quality, quantity and use of evaluation across the public sector, drawing on my personal experience working within both the UK Government’s Evaluation Task Force (ETF) and the Australian Government’s Australian Centre for Evaluation (ACE).

In the UK, the ETF is a joint Cabinet Office–HM Treasury unit established to ensure that evidence and evaluation sit “at the heart of spending decisions”. It works to improve how government programmes are evaluated, providing advice on designing and delivering evaluations and challenging departments to be transparent by including evaluations on the publicly accessible, Evaluation Registry website. The ETF also leads cross‑government capability building, including the Evaluation Academy, which has trained hundreds of evaluation experts who have in turn trained thousands of public servants on evaluation. These initiatives aim to expand both the volume and quality of evaluation activity and strengthen its use in decision‑making.

In Australia, ACE was established to “put evaluation evidence at the heart of policy design and decision‑making,” with a mandate to improve the volume, quality and use of evaluation evidence across government. ACE supports the Commonwealth Evaluation Policy, strengthens evaluation capability, delivers evaluations, and improves evaluation planning in the budget process. Together, these reforms seek to build an evaluative culture across the Australian Public Service.

The objective of this presentation is to share these cross‑government efforts with the wider evaluation community, highlighting traditions and new ways, boundaries and bridges, and the roots and routes shaping reform, and to provide space for attendees to ask questions and explore implications.

Thursday September 17, 2026 4:30pm - 5:00pm ACST
Waterfront 2 Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia

Boundaries and bridges

Format Short paper
Audience Level Foundational, Intermediate
Industry Education and training, Economic development tourism and infrastructure, Community and social services, Environment and climate change
ID 224

9:00am ACST

10:30am ACST

10:30am ACST

10:30am ACST

10:30am ACST

11:00am ACST

11:30am ACST

11:30am ACST

11:30am ACST

11:30am ACST

11:30am ACST

11:30am ACST

12:00pm ACST

12:00pm ACST

12:00pm ACST

1:30pm ACST

1:30pm ACST

1:30pm ACST

1:30pm ACST

1:30pm ACST

2:00pm ACST

2:00pm ACST

2:00pm ACST

2:30pm ACST

2:30pm ACST

2:30pm ACST

3:30pm ACST

3:30pm ACST

3:30pm ACST

3:30pm ACST

3:30pm ACST

4:00pm ACST

4:00pm ACST

4:00pm ACST

4:00pm ACST

4:00pm ACST

4:30pm ACST

Get help with the event